Do the committees that oversee the vast U.S. spying apparatus take intelligence community whistleblowers seriously? Do they earnestly investigate reports of waste, fraud, abuse, professional negligence, or crimes against the Constitution reported by employees or contractors working for agencies like the CIA or NSA? For the last 20 years, the answer has been a resounding “no.”

My own experience in 1995-96 is illustrative. Over a two-year period working with my wife, Robin (who was a CIA detailee to a Senate committee at the time), we discovered that, contrary to the public statements by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell and other senior George H. W. Bush administration officials (including CIA Director John Deutch), American troops had in fact been exposed to chemical agents during and after the 1991 war with Saddam Hussein. While the Senate Banking Committee under then-Chairman Don Riegle, D-Mich., was trying to uncover the truth of this, officials at the Pentagon and CIA were working to bury it.

At the CIA, I objected internally — and was immediately placed under investigation by the CIA’s Office of Security. That became clear just days after we delivered the first of our several internal briefings to increasingly senior officials at the CIA and other intelligence agencies. In February 1995, I received a phone call from CIA Security asking whether I’d had any contacts with the media. I had not, but I had mentioned to CIA officials we’d met with that I knew that the CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” was working on a piece about the Gulf War chemical cover-up. This call would not be the last I’d receive from CIA Security about the matter, nor the only action the agency would take against us.

In the spring of 1995, a former manager of Robin’s discreetly pulled her aside and said that CIA Security agents were asking questions about us, talking to every single person with or for whom either of us had worked. I seemed to be the special focus of their attention, and the last question they asked our friends, colleagues, and former managers was, “Do you believe Pat Eddington would allow his conscience to override the secrecy agreement he signed?”

The agency didn’t care about helping to find out why hundreds of thousands of American Desert Storm veterans were ill. All it cared about was whether I’d keep my mouth shut about what the secret documents and reports in its databases had to say about the potential or actual chemical exposures to our troops.

Seeing the writing on the wall, I began working on what would become a book about our experience: “Gassed in the Gulf.” The agency tried to block publication of the book and attempted to reclassify hundreds of previously declassified Department of Defense and CIA intelligence reports that helped us make our case. After I filed a lawsuit, the agency yielded. We left and became whistleblowers, our story a front-page sensation just days before the 1996 presidential election. Within six months, the CIA was forced to admit that it had indeed been withholding data on such chemical exposures, which were a possible cause of the post-war illnesses that would ultimately affect about one-third of the nearly 700,000 U.S. troops who served in Kuwait and Iraq. None of the CIA or Pentagon officials who perpetrated the cover-up were fired or prosecuted.

A U.S. soldier, wearing a gas mask and chemical warfare equipment, stands in front of a French armored vehicle from the 6th Foreign Legion Engineers Regiment in Saudia Arabia on Feb. 9, 1991.

Photo: Michel Gangne/AFP/Getty Images

Around this time, a small, dedicated group of NSA employees was trying to solve another national security problem: how to make it possible for the government to eavesdrop successfully in the age of the internet.

Led by NSA crypto-mathematician Bill Binney, the team developed an ingenious technical program called ThinThread, which allowed the NSA to process incoming surveillance information but segregate and discard the communications of innocent Americans. The program was innovative, cheap, and badly needed. But just months before the 9/11 attacks, then-NSA Director Michael Hayden rejected ThinThread in favor of an untested, expensive alternative called Trailblazer, offered by a Washington, D.C.-based defense contractor. It became a pricey boondoggle that never produced a single piece of intelligence.

Enraged that a program they believed could have prevented the 9/11 attacks had been jettisoned, Binney and his colleagues privately approached the House Intelligence Committee. When that failed to produce results, they issued a formal complaint to the Defense Department’s inspector general.

The subsequent investigation validated the allegations of the NSA ThinThread team. But in spite of this vindication, all who had filed the complaint were subsequently investigated by the FBI on bogus charges of leaking classified information. The episode is now the subject of an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower reprisal investigation, involving former NSA senior manager and ThinThread proponent Tom Drake. I have read the Defense Department inspector general report, which is still almost completely classified, and filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking its declassification. The Pentagon has stonewalled my request for more than a year and a half.

Congress has made no effort to investigate any of this.

Within the small, tight-knit circle of ex-intelligence community whistleblowers and the nonprofit organizations that work on their behalf, the ThinThread/Trailblazer case became infamous. By early 2013, it had come to the attention of a young NSA contractor named Edward Snowden, who had surreptitiously collected damaging proof that the NSA had taken the very technology that Binney and his team had developed and turned it inward, on the American public.

After blowing the whistle to multiple news organizations, Snowden made clear that the terrible experience of the NSA ThinThread team had led him to believe that taking his concerns to Congress would be pointless. Given the subsequent revelations by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., that they privately objected to the George W. Bush administration’s domestic spying program but did nothing to stop it, Snowden’s decision was entirely rational.

In September 2016, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., released a three-page summary of a classified 36-page “damage assessment” on Snowden’s revelations. Although it claimed that Snowden’s disclosures had “caused tremendous damage to national security,” the committee produced no evidence that the leaks had led to the death of a single American. The committee did imply that Snowden had given American secrets to the Russians — an allegation no prosecutor involved in the case has made and not contained in the Justice Department’s indictment against him.

Most outrageously, the committee claimed that laws at the time provided protection for Snowden to blow the whistle through official channels. That’s false. Legal safeguards for contractors working for the NSA and other spy agencies existed in pilot form between 2008 and 2012. When they were up for renewal in the annual Defense Department policy bill in 2013, they were rejected — by the House Intelligence Committee.

We now live in a country where the committees charged with reining in excessive domestic spying instead too often act as apologists and attack dogs for the agencies they are charged with regulating. As a result, it’s pretty clear that those intelligence agencies — and not the elected representatives of the American people — are really running the show in Washington.

Top photo: A photographer closes in on CIA Director John Deutch on Capitol Hill on Feb. 22, 1996, prior to a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Deutch and other intelligence officials had made statements about the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War—that no such weapons were used—that contradicted the findings of Eddington and his wife.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Contact the author:

Every American agency and front companies takes a supreme (and superseding) loyalty oath to follow and defend the U.S. Constitution. It is disloyal to the United Stated to subvert the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Proper loyalty is the top requirement for anyone operating in extreme secrecy and little oversight. Maybe the Press and civil liberties groups should remind CIA and NSA personnel/contractors of their top loyalty contract since their agency leaders aren’t providing that training?

Turning on and spying on your own fellow Americans is a communist style Stasi – not an intelligence service.

How greedy can governments be to control their citizens’ privacy and lives and no one does anything because they enjoy keeping the majority of citizens sleeping, like zombies using social media and the internet. Media is also bribed by those corrupted people in Congress who just follow “commands” from the greedy elite that wants to control all citizens in the planet and start reducing population, thanks to their ambitious goals via human experimentation to some common citizens or guinea pigs like myself first, then to global scales. And no one does anything, so sad! I can’t either, demons are too powerful and only God shall destroy the civilization’s enemies.

rrheard et al, some thread! thank you for “paying to attention” to Nates’ kinds of b#llsh!tters, even if I am sure you know/notice those kinds of individuals

And what would that “more measured” approach have looked like in your opinion. And to what end, if you actually agree that if Snowden didn’t do what he did in the way he did it the scope and scale of these programs would have been buried forever, or released in some piecemeal manner likely decades all while the programs were still violating everyone’s privacy (which oddly enough they are still likely doing notwithstanding Mr. Snowden’s disclosures

I think Snowden’s disclosures have definitely enabled people to think of their own government in an entire different “light” (at least those with a brain and spine healthy enough to do so), but haven’t made a difference in the ways they operate logistically and the type of “oversight” over them, because reporting has been way to “ethical”. After the OPM hack, since the Chinese owned their @ss going back to the time computers were used in the 70’s, there really isn’t any point on protecting their names and actions. They don’t want any actual criminal prosecution started against them. For that you need concrete names linked to concrete actions, but Greewald/TheIntercept keep protection those individuals boasting about and making fun of torture and genocide.

What we need are whistleblowers who would “very irresponsible”, “patriotically” post the whole damn thing on wikileaks unredacted. This is the only way to bring about some change. You have to get squarely on their faces. At times I wonder if Greewald/TheIntercept realize they speaking a language of humanity and morality to police and politicians.

The US Government uses its secret police powers to engage economic warfare, economic espionage, industrial espionage, theft of private property, theft of intellectual property, theft of intellectual work. Both individuals and organizations are targeted by the state security apparatus. Both American citizens and foreign nationals & entities, organizations such as companies/universities etc. are targeted by the CIA, NSA, Pentagon etc.

The state security apparatus also engages in political persecution of persons targeted by the secret police and subjected to theft of their property. Going after innocent people helps cover up the crimes and criminal activities carried out by the Generals, Admirals, Pentagon, and the Secret Police Chiefs.

There is zero resistance or opposition to the secret police and state security apparatus inside the Washington Regime.

Apparently, after triangulating our state of affairs somewhere between Huxley’s “Brave New World”, Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and Zamyatin’s “We”; NSA powerhouses Bill Binney and Kirk Wiebe have stood up to support targeted individuals worldwide.

That kind of nationalistic egoism called “patriotism” has been masterfully exploited by our rulers since times immemorial. The kind of like-minded individuals persecuting us in the U.S. are exactly the same ones engaging in persecuting, torturing and genocidally exterminating people in the rest of the world

“These are the gentry who are today wrapped up in the American flag, who shout their claim from the housetops that they are the only patriots, and who have their magnifying glasses in hand, scanning the country for evidence of disloyalty, eager to apply the brand of treason to the men who dare to even whisper their opposition to Junker rule in the United Sates. No wonder Sam Johnson declared that “patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He must have had this Wall Street gentry in mind, or at least their prototypes, for in every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.” Eugene V. Debs (1918 Anti-war Speech/Canton, OH)

High-level NSA whistleblower exposed that they SPY ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE, on judges, white house staff and of course THE CONGRESS. That is why no one in Congress will act against them. All their dirt is used for BLACKMAIL.

The entire government is a cesspool of corruption. Any whistleblowers have to go up against the profound sickness tnats inherent in that world. A sickness so normalized it’s not even perceaived as detrimental to the well being of the entire planet as it is..it’s populated with the absolute worst human excrement that exists and they all pay themselves on the back how clever they are to be able to deceive vast numbers of the human population all to serve the interest of the corporate political and financial elite..it’s a sewer of whores and con artist posing as civil servants and hiding behind the facades of polite society when in fact they are nothing but excrement in human skin.

“At the CIA, I objected internally — and was immediately placed under investigation by the CIA’s Office of Security.”

“But in spite of this vindication, all who had filed the complaint were subsequently investigated by the FBI on bogus charges of leaking classified information.”

I know these stories well, have read countless times about Binney, Drake, and others trying to present their concerns about the constitutionality of these programs to the appropriate people. The stories have become almost formulaic, like an urban myth shared with the gang as we all sat in front of the fireplace. The fixed elements of the story are these:

1. The earnest employees became troubled at the possibly unconstitutional use of the programs.
2. Adhering to established procedure, the employees voiced their concern to their supervisor who told them to leave it alone.
3. Increasingly disturbed, the employees persisted in their in-channel inquiries and shared their concerns with a member of the congressional intelligence oversight committee.
4. The employees were almost immediately quarantined at work and placed under investigation for leaking classified information/espionage/grand theft auto, you name it.
5. Exiting the shower one beautiful fall morning, the employees found military men in black pointing big guns at their wet, nude bodies.
6. The houses of employees were searched and all personal devices were carted away.
7. The employees were charged with leaking classified information, espionage, grand theft auto, you name it, after which the former employees were unable to find work, lost their homes, went broke paying for attorneys, but became heroes in the eyes of a young NSA contractor named Ed Snowden.

One would think that our govt would be ashamed of destroying people who were absolutely right. You’d also think that our govt would be ashamed of failing patriotic soldiers who needed care after being exposed to chemical weapons but couldn’t find it.

Whenever I read these stories, especially the Ed Snowden story, these video clip runs in my mind of Representative Peter King who condemns Snowden for not going through the proper channels if he had some concerns about NSA programs. “He could have gone to Diana Feinstein, he could have come to me. Instead, he ignored sharing his concerns within the proper channels and went straight to the press, putting American lives in danger.” I’ve never see any member of the press challenge him on this statement.

I’ve never see any member of the press challenge him on this statement.
There’s a most worthy double downer. I don’t see the press challenging Lady H on her misdeeds either. All i can figure is that if the press is so opposed to The D, an investigation into the H would be the tip of a very large icenetwork.

Why bullshit so much? Binney wanted to have his baby used. Are you suggesting that he wrote an unconstitutional program and then turned whistleblower against it?

Drake and Binney blew the whistle because of cost and reliability issues. Inefficiency. Not the bloody fucking Constitution. And their saga showed that proper whistleblowing worked. The Government stopped using the expensive, inefficient program.

On another note, Snowden could have gone to the Office of Special Counsel, to an Inspector General or to Senator Wyden. Well, maybe not Senator Wyden because of the timeline.

Snowden supposedly got really mad when he heard Wyden question Clapper, and that’s what motivated him to steal Government secrets. Of course, that can’t be true because he had started his crime spree many months before.

“Why bullshit so much? Binney wanted to have his baby used. Are you suggesting that he wrote an unconstitutional program and then turned whistleblower against it?”

No, he wrote a program that was a tool; and like any tool it is constitutionally neutral. What’s it is used for and how is another matter altogether. Per Binney:

“the country was founded on principles that are nowhere near those that they’re executing. I mean, that’s the problem; all the actions they’re taking are basically unconstitutional. In fact, I call it high treason against the founding principles of this nation.”

You go on to claim, incorrectly, that:

“Drake and Binney blew the whistle because of cost and reliability issues. Inefficiency. Not the bloody fucking Constitution.”

Read Binney’s words from above again. You’re confused in that you think a program can be only costly and unconstitutional, not both. These are not mutually exclusive.

Binney wanted to “have his baby” [‘ThinThread’] used precisely because it was less expensive and less invasive of American’s constitutionally protected rights.

POWER is like mercury. It scatters about when dropped but when a connection is made, it merges and gets bigger. People in a competitive operating environment where life support is not guaranteed love power. They then come to love all the trappings it provides, especially when the power can guarantee them a foreseeable future for themselves and then for their offsprings. At some point they stop serving regular people and serve THE POWER. The power allows them to extract the survival and comfort resources from the people. It’s intoxicating. Finally, those who protest the abuses that the worshippers of power take, brand the people they serve as the enemy.

Ultimately the worshippers of power will enable their wealthy and wallstreet funders, who dont like competition, to rob businesses of information.

quote”Do the committees that oversee the vast U.S. spying apparatus take intelligence community whistleblowers seriously? Do they earnestly investigate reports of waste, fraud, abuse, professional negligence, or crimeagainst the Constitution reported by employees or contractors working for agencies like the CIA or NSA? For the last 20 years, the answer has been a resounding “no.” unquote

Jim Garrison told the entire planet the same thing in 1967. Moreover, he laid out the PROBABLE CAUSE that the CIA “IS” the government, leaving the Congress as a debating society, and the Executive as a moronic laughing stock subject to the Secret Teams wishes. Think what you will. But before you think you know more than Col. Fletcher Prouty.. you might wanna read this…

and
“Oh, that dreadful house!”
and
Secret executive hearings of CUAA opened November 20, 1934. Sworn testimony showed that the plotters represented notable families –Rockefeller, Mellon, Pew, Pitcairn, Hutton; and great enterprises– Morgan, Dupont, Remington, Anaconda, Bethlehem, Goodyear, GMC, Swift, Sun…. Some people named as plotters laughed, all denied everything.
and
Oswald did it.
and
Russia did it.

Pat Eddington describes a bad situation in this article. It seems to me that things have gotten much worse the last 8 years under President Obama. There needs to be a better way that people can get access to the courts. Right now when the government breaks the law (which would be a felony for you or I) they can just cover there tracks by retroactively classifying everything and never be held responsible in a court of law.

Congress attempted to put some oversight over the Patriot Act in 2001. Section 213 of the Patriot Act attempted to provide some government accounting in civil court but this just doesn’t work, the government knows that it doesn’t work, and that is why the government feels that they can abuse the system and do what is in my opinion not only unconstitutional; but also criminal behavior – and never get caught or be held responsible. The oversight provided by congress is a joke, and the oversight by the courts is a joke.

quote” …..and that is why the government feels that they can abuse the system and do what is in my opinion not only unconstitutional; but also criminal behavior – and never get caught or be held responsible. “unquote

I suggest you do a search on “LEGAL IMPERIALISM”. Let me put it to you simply. If you lived on a block where a gang had ultimate power, and there was no other power to stop them, they make their own LAW. Be it written, enacted by a congress of their peers or not. It doesn’t matter. On an international scale.. the USG is a LEGAL IMPERIALISM. They write the laws that give themselves legal “standing” to do what the fuck ever they want to do. And they get away with it precisely because… NO ONE CAN STOP THEM. Period.

Just heard a piece about CAKES, a government insider whistleblower program. Cicadia330 is said to be a pentagon program, revolutionary software that not even the NSA or CIA can crack, set up to expose enemies within OUR government. But you knew this, eh? See youtube, Victurus Libertas. Thanks to Guccifer2, AnonDCleaks, Wikileaks and OUR gov insiders. And of course, thanks, Intercept!

Excellent, concise article. I learnt something new: that whistleblower protection didn’t exist for Snowden _even in theory_. I had thought the legislation was there but was simply not being followed by the NSA.
This point is worth repeating.

Bingo! The USG expects the entire population of the US, to ignore, the 800lb gorilla in the room. A direct pledge to SUPPORT the Constituion of the United States of America, should be overidden to be an employee of the IC. Moreover, to do TREASONOUS, CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL acts, in the name of National Security, is a CRIME in itself. The very thing that every scumsucking IC official has been trying to qualify ever since the Church Committee created the FISC. This is the problem with secret courts, secret law, secret rulings, secret documents, secret people and secret surveillance. NO ONE CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!! Comprende?

The REAL question is.. when are you going to pick up a weapon, learn how to use it, join similar feeling people…. and change it? JUST LIKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS GIVES WE THE PEOPLE….. THE POWER TO DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem with intelligence oversight is that Congress is largely unsuited for the role.

Congress, of course, has many oversight committees for such matters as banking, finance, the armed services, etc. In terms of resources and attention, and even hearings and staff, intelligence is near the bottom of the heap.

And, of course, for a member of Congress, re-election is always a primary goal. Servie on an intelligence committee is a distraction for the issues that voters back home will likely care about, and, of course, much of a congressman’s work there can not be openly discussed.

Oversight over intelligence activities means very little upside credit for the demanding, yet secret, task of monitoring classified itnelligence activities. Where there is upside credit to be taken, information is leaked by the administration, which, of course, takes the gains for having acted. It’s hard for a memebr of Congress to get credit for having asked probing questions of an activity one is not free to disclose to the press or public—even if leaked by the administration. It’s hard to get credit for having asked good questions in secret sessions.

And, of course, it’s easy for the committees to get tarnished by controversial intelligence programs. Remember how Nancy Pelosi claimed never to have been briefed on waterboarding? There’s lots of risk, but little reward.

Perhaps if members of Congress focused on the reason people elected them to Congress, rather than on advancing their own careers, it would be possible for them to focus on their jobs rather than on distractions such as reelection. That would also free them from the undue influence of lobbyists and from the need to accommodate large donors by betraying the electorate.

When the US was founded, there was no political class, and people viewed their terms in Congress and the various legislatures as an opportunity to serve their nation or their state. Perhaps the voters could return us to such an attitude by making it virtually impossible for any of them to get re-elected. An opportunity to do so is less than two weeks away.

“.. never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week. If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses — you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.” Eugene V. Debs
Smart guy.

Do the committees that oversee the vast U.S. spying apparatus take intelligence community whistleblowers seriously? Do they earnestly investigate reports of waste, fraud, abuse, professional negligence, or crimes against the Constitution reported by employees or contractors working for agencies like the CIA or NSA? For the last 20 years, the answer has been a resounding “no.”

For such a grand statement, I’d expect you’d have some data to substantiate it. You reference your own anecdote and that of the Thinthread v. Trailblazer group. A sample size of two instances doesn’t constitute a “resounding ‘no'” to your broad questions spanning 20 years.

Furthermore, you didn’t point out that the ThinThread team had the ear of Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee. She apparently did not play deaf, but helped author the complaint to the Inspector General.

This article is a justification for potential whistleblowers to bypass internal agency entities and Congress to go straight to the media. Based on two examples. It is trying to excuse Snowden’s decision not to contact a person in Congress (Wyden would be a good choice) or an Inspector General. But let’s pretend Snowden did take this route: would he have sent Congress or the Inspector General hundreds of thousands of documents for them to sort out? His decision to take an archive of records made going to Congress or agency oversight body basically impossible.

In February 1995, I received a phone call from CIA Security asking whether I’d had any contacts with the media. I had not, but I had mentioned to CIA officials we’d met with that I knew that the CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes” was working on a piece about the Gulf War chemical cover-up.

The NYT article that you later link to says this:

[Mr. Eddington] became so enraged over the Government’s conduct that in 1994, he wrote a letter to the editor of the The Washington Times, without noting his ties to the intelligence agency. The letter, which was published, alleged a Government ”cover-up.”

But let’s pretend Snowden did take this route: would he have sent Congress or the Inspector General hundreds of thousands of documents for them to sort out? His decision to take an archive of records made going to Congress or agency oversight body basically impossible.

Really? The US Congress with all of its resources can’t handle sorting through hundreds of thousands of documents as a function of its Constitutionally mandated oversight role of executive branch agencies?

For such a grand statement, I’d expect you’d have some data to substantiate it.

Have any evidence for your grand statement amount Congress not being able to do its job if a lot of relevant documents are at issue?

I mean Congress, and the relevant committees didn’t seem to have a problem dealing with the 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of pages of evidence and records it used in constructing its report on use of torture by various executive branch agencies. Granted it took quite a few years, but they seemed capable of handling large volumes of documents. Or how about all the public comment on the ACA?

Moreover, if Congress is so “incapable” of dealing with large volumes of records or evidence, then wouldn’t the logical conclusion be that Congress is incapable of functionally performing its Constitutionally mandated oversight role? In which case we’ve got serious problems in this country if Congress can only fulfill its mandated role when the relevant documents at issue in performing a particular piece of oversight can only number in the 100s or thousands. Dontchya think?

Really? The US Congress with all of its resources can’t handle sorting through hundreds of thousands of documents as a function of its Constitutionally mandated oversight role of executive branch agencies?

That’s not how the whistle-blowing process works. If I suspected rrheard of operating an illegal neighborhood lemonade stand, I wouldn’t pilfer your house, steal your entire file cabinet, drop it off at the police station and expect them to sift through it and figure it out independently. I would provide my whistleblower complaint along with the documents that support it.

Ideally, if Snowden desired to have a more measured approach, he would have identified the worrisome programs (e.g. metadata, PRISM, etc), taken records necessary to support his complaints, and sent them to Congress or an oversight body such as the Inspector General. He didn’t do that. Furthermore, he cannot seem to prove his claims that he reported his concerns internally within the NSA, other than asking questions about training and the precedence of EOs vs. statutes.

Have any evidence for your grand statement amount Congress not being able to do its job if a lot of relevant documents are at issue?

As I said above, the process doesn’t work that way. You don’t throw the kitchen sink at Congress and say “perform your oversight!!” If that was the case, why not fire all supervisors within the intelligence community and just have Congress provide supervision!? Oversight does not equal management. I never said Congress was incapable of dealing with huge amounts of information, but that Snowden’s archive of records on an endless number of topics made it virtually impossible to articulate specifiable complaints. Congress can indeed handle large archives. For example, SSCI spent five years to issue its report on CIA treatment of detainees. That investigation was based on specific allegations of wrongdoing after the CIA’s destruction of tapes in 2005. There was a clear impetus in that case and it still took half a decade! I mean, here we are 3-years post-Snowden and under 1% of the archive has been published.

You clearly confuse oversight with management. Management occurs at a programmatic level across an entire agency. Oversight bodies typically function by first identification potential problems or areas of risk, followed by a review or investigation. This identification may come from whistleblowers, media accounts, knowledge of Department processes, etc.

In which case we’ve got serious problems in this country if Congress can only fulfill its mandated role when the relevant documents at issue in performing a particular piece of oversight can only number in the 100s or thousands. Dontchya think?

You’re simplifying the issue and ignoring process. Take for example the ATF’s Gunwalking (Fast and Furious) scandals. If you threw a million records at Congress’s foot including the evidence of ATF’s allowing straw purchases to occur, would Congress have identified it? I’d wager that the answer would be no. What happened is ATF officials intimately familiar with the gun-walking blew the whistle – internally, to the IG, and to Congress – which kicked off multiple investigations and the rest is history.

Actually Nate I’m not confusing oversight with management. Nor oversimplifying anything either. And as someone who worked for the federal government for approximately 14.5 years, and actually engaged in something very close to formal whistleblowing, I can tell you the process rarely works in any executive branch agency. Take a look, if you’re actually interested, in the theory of the Iron Law of Institutions.

If you honestly believe American government agencies have some sort of commitment to internal self-regulation and/or self-reporting to their appropriate oversight bodies in Congress their mistakes or failures, I’d argue you have very little personal, academic or legal experience with these processes and the operation.

Moreover, I can only take you at your word or argument:

Oversight does not equal management. I never said Congress was incapable of dealing with huge amounts of information, but that Snowden’s archive of records on an endless number of topics made it virtually impossible to articulate specifiable complaints.

Unless you have a different definition of “virtually” and “impossible” reality demonstrates it wasn’t “virtually impossible” for Congress to perform its oversight role even from the documents Snowden released as there have been too many “complaints” to even count that have been derived from what has been released from those materials i.e. from specific programs, to dubious legal bases for certain programs, to the NSAs methods of capture that violate international law and other nation’s sovereignty, to the scope and scale of the spying all over the globe, to NSA partners activities that violate those partner’s domestic laws or treaties . . . .

So is it your opinion, as a function of practical reality, that Snowden all by himself, should have spent years and years attempting to organize and categorize (and make himself familiar with ever relevant law domestic and foreign that may be applicable) and make a specific complaint internally about each, as opposed to what he did? Because you’re living in a fantasy if you think that ever could or would have happened.

Moreover, most of the relevant politicians on the relevant Congressional committees were appropriately briefed on the existence of these programs and legal issues, and did nothing–for years. Do you think Snowden was aware of that reality? Of course he was, as he was aware of his colleagues in the NSA who had tried to bring this to the attention of Congress through the internal channels, and got exactly one thing done–themselves prosecuted instead of the relevant oversight being conducted.

And without wading through all your hypotheticals and why I think they are inapt, I’ll say this–your argument appears to be Snowden could have tried the internal whistleblower route if he had taken proper care to cull down to its barest essence only those documents he thought could support a whistleblower claim.

But, IMHO, that misapprehends what Mr. Snowden had to go through just to get away with removing any of the documents in the first instance (he was time limited by the fact that there was going to be “upgrades” to internal security for contractors like Booz Allen that would have made it much more likely he couldn’t download and remove the documents in the first instance and that the information would be forever effectively buried). From what he’s stated (and I don’t have the link at hand), he saw so much “unlawful” spying all wrapped up in interrelated programs and policies, that it was necessary to grab as much as he did to establish the interrelated nature of all of that “unlawful” activity. That was the sheer breadth and scope of it, which I’d think you’d agree would never have come to light via a specific one issue internal whistleblower complaint. And if you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what else we have to discuss.

And seriously Nate, unless you are totally ignorant of US history and things like the Church Committee, the US “intelligence” community and agencies like the CIA don’t really have any documented record whatsoever of self-restraint, self-regulation and/or in rarely permitting effective oversight except incident to something like the Snowden leaks.

For fuck’s sake Nate, the CIA almost created a Constitutional crisis by spying on members of Congress and their staff in producing the torture report just so they would never be held accountable for their role in torture. Is that news to you? Or how about a top CIA official Jose Rodriguez purposefully destroyed video of 99 torture sessions despite being under a court order to preserve them. Does that sound like an agency interested in self-reporting, self-regulation or in any way handling internal whistleblower complaints in good faith? Fuck no, and if you believe otherwise you’re deluding yourself.

Seriously Nate, I generally find you pretty reasonable, but your faith and or reliance on internal mechanisms for reporting government wrongdoing is really really badly misplaced. And there is almost no documented history in US government of the “intelligence” agencies and/or CIA being good faith actors in that regard. So we will probably just have to disagree about what is at issue here, and what Mr. Snowden should or should not have done.

Actually Nate I’m not confusing oversight with management. Nor oversimplifying anything either. And as someone who worked for the federal government for approximately 14.5 years, and actually engaged in something very close to formal whistleblowing, I can tell you the process rarely works in any executive branch agency.

Another example of using anecdotal evidence to draw widespread conclusions. Well, I’ve also got one: having previously worked in an oversight position for 10+ years and interacted directly with whistle-blowers. I have no illusion that my experience represented some all-encompassing norm but just my little sliver of the experience. And that one sliver of the oversight/whistle-blower process, while having faults like anything else, ultimately worked. I might not have liked all the outcomes, but they were reached through the process nonetheless.

If you honestly believe American government agencies have some sort of commitment to internal self-regulation and/or self-reporting to their appropriate oversight bodies in Congress their mistakes or failures, I’d argue you have very little personal, academic or legal experience with these processes and the operation.

Your view is cynical, dismissive, and absolutist. It reminds me of those who say all police are bad. There are some serious bad apple cops and problems abound, but they are not all criminals with badges. Your comment is similar because it implies everybody in government is a shill who doesn’t have the sense of moral and ethical righteousness held by you. Were you the only anomaly during your time with the feds!?

Unless you have a different definition of “virtually” and “impossible” reality demonstrates it wasn’t “virtually impossible” for Congress to perform its oversight role even from the documents Snowden released as there have been too many “complaints” to even count that have been derived from what has been released from those materials i.e. from specific programs, to dubious legal bases for certain programs, to the NSAs methods of capture that violate international law and other nation’s sovereignty, to the scope and scale of the spying all over the globe, to NSA partners activities that violate those partner’s domestic laws or treaties . . .

Quite the sentence you’ve got there… You’re cherry picking the most legitimate materials within the 1% of records released, but ignoring my overarching message which focuses on the archive in its totality. Also, it isn’t Congress’s mandate to protect other “nation’s sovereignty” unless it violates U.S. or international law. In other words, spying on adversarial nations is fair game.

So is it your opinion, as a function of practical reality, that Snowden all by himself, should have spent years and years attempting to organize and categorize (and make himself familiar with ever relevant law domestic and foreign that may be applicable) and make a specific complaint internally about each, as opposed to what he did? Because you’re living in a fantasy if you think that ever could or would have happened.

This isn’t my conclusion as I’ve made quite clear. I am not saying he should have personally organized his thousands upon thousands of stolen records but that he:

1. identify the programs he believes are unconstitutional
2. select the records necessary to support his case.

The media holding his archive has released at most 1% of it. Why was it necessary to steal the proverbial file cabinet!?

Of course he was, as he was aware of his colleagues in the NSA who had tried to bring this to the attention of Congress through the internal channels, and got exactly one thing done–themselves prosecuted instead of the relevant oversight being conducted.

What you see as a justification I see as an excuse. His “NSA colleagues'” whistle-blower complaint resulted in a report that was highly critical of and ultimately shut down Trailblazer. His supporters always seem to gloss over that fact in their effort to absolve him of all actions. Ironic since they claim to support accountability, but when the tires hit the rubber it’s a one-way street.

But, IMHO, that misapprehends what Mr. Snowden had to go through just to get away with removing any of the documents in the first instance (he was time limited by the fact that there was going to be “upgrades” to internal security for contractors like Booz Allen that would have made it much more likely he couldn’t download and remove the documents in the first instance and that the information would be forever effectively buried).

Perhaps he was time-limited, but at the end of the day that’s a risk he had to take.

From what he’s stated (and I don’t have the link at hand), he saw so much “unlawful” spying all wrapped up in interrelated programs and policies, that it was necessary to grab as much as he did to establish the interrelated nature of all of that “unlawful” activity. That was the sheer breadth and scope of it, which I’d think you’d agree would never have come to light via a specific one issue internal whistleblower complaint. And if you don’t understand that, then I don’t know what else we have to discuss.

The actual percent of materials published casts significant doubt on this claim. I do agree that without Snowden, all this material would not be in the open and at best would be discussed behind closed doors or within heavily redacted reports. If he had taken a more measured approach, I’d be waving my “pardon Snowden” flag as well. He didn’t and my concession doesn’t grant Snowden unconditional deference.

And seriously Nate, unless you are totally ignorant of US history and things like the Church Committee, the US “intelligence” community and agencies like the CIA don’t really have any documented record whatsoever of self-restraint, self-regulation and/or in rarely permitting effective oversight except incident to something like the Snowden leaks.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a direct outcome of the Church Committee as was the creation of oversight committees. The Pike Committee further bolstered oversight abilities. I’m fairly confident in my history here.

For fuck’s sake Nate, the CIA almost created a Constitutional crisis by spying on members of Congress and their staff in producing the torture report just so they would never be held accountable for their role in torture. Is that news to you? Or how about a top CIA official Jose Rodriguez purposefully destroyed video of 99 torture sessions despite being under a court order to preserve them. Does that sound like an agency interested in self-reporting, self-regulation or in any way handling internal whistleblower complaints in good faith? Fuck no, and if you believe otherwise you’re deluding yourself.

Why would you assume this was news to me when I brought it up in the first place and you’re largely repeating what I said? Please save the hysterics. I never endorsed the fiction of “self-reporting” but fully believe in the value of strong independent oversight and that whistle-blowers shouldn’t be told to just skip inside channels and go straight to the media where they risk exposure to prosecution.

Another example of using anecdotal evidence to draw widespread conclusions. Well, I’ve also got one: having previously worked in an oversight position for 10+ years and interacted directly with whistle-blowers.

And you’re doing exactly what with your anecdote as opposed to mine? Out of curiosity in what “oversight” capacity did you work–attorney or some other role. I think it’s a relevant question given you are supporting your opinion with an anecdote and appeal to authority just as I did.

I have no illusion that my experience represented some all-encompassing norm but just my little sliver of the experience.

Fair enough. I’m not making an absolutist argument that “all oversight is ineffective”, so in arguing that in your experience that sometimes that oversight is effective, is beside the point. I was making a general argument specifically to one arena primarily which is the intelligence agencies and accountability.

And that one sliver of the oversight/whistle-blower process, while having faults like anything else, ultimately worked. I might not have liked all the outcomes, but they were reached through the process nonetheless.

Again, without knowing what oversight role you filled, and in what context and with what results, I don’t know how to give that argument much weight vs. my experience. Moreover, any process that has “flaws” despite you employing it for 10 years, yields what as a function of consistent “justice” and/or “accountability”? To one degree or another I’d argue “inconsistent justice” and that’s problematic in itself.

Quite the sentence you’ve got there… You’re cherry picking the most legitimate materials within the 1% of records released, but ignoring my overarching message which focuses on the archive in its totality.

Not cherry picking, it was making the counterargument to yours that there was simpler way for Mr. Snowden to have brought his concerns and evidence it through internal whistleblower channels. Have you seen the entire archive? Me either. But so much of what has been disclosed involves hundreds and hundreds of pages of technical information that is absolutely necessary to document the actual mechanism and means by which these programs existed and functioned. And based on that, and having not seen the entire archive, I’m going to rely on Glenn and Ed Snowden’s judgment of what was or was not “necessary” to establish that definitively even if only certain portions were reported in the press in such a way as that it could even be understood by laymen. But given the scope, scale and reach of what was disclosed, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt that even if he took some material that wasn’t 100% necessary (whether do to time constraints or any other), that so long as it wasn’t publically released by Glenn or other journalism outlets, then it’s a non-issue in my book that he may have take some things that weren’t strictly 100% “necessary” to make his case to the public.

What you see as a justification I see as an excuse. His “NSA colleagues’” whistle-blower complaint resulted in a report that was highly critical of and ultimately shut down Trailblazer. His supporters always seem to gloss over that fact in their effort to absolve him of all actions. Ironic since they claim to support accountability, but when the tires hit the rubber it’s a one-way street.

And what happened to all those whistleblowers notwithstanding the end result–almost to a person they were criminally prosecuted and lives ruined? Nobody has ever argued, not Glenn, Edward Snowden or me, that there should be no accountability for what Edward Snowden did, only that it be fair and proportional and that he be allowed to advance certain legal defenses that are currently forbidden to him by law. Unless of course you think the “law” is always “just”. As a lawyer I’m still more beholden to the concept of “justice” than I am slavish adherence to “process” understanding all the while what function and values that underlay any particular legal process. But if a process is cabined in such a way as to not yield justice, and as a working lawyer I can attest that it often is so cabined without sufficient justification, then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what appropriate balances should be struck as a normative or legal matter.

The actual percent of materials published casts significant doubt on this claim.

Again we’ll have to agree to disagree as only a handful of individuals and journalistic outlets have ever seen the entire archive to know if your doubt is well-founded or not.

I do agree that without Snowden, all this material would not be in the open and at best would be discussed behind closed doors or within heavily redacted reports.

In other words, but for Snowden doing what he did we wouldn’t likely know about any of it. Thanks for agreeing to my obvious point. You can’t have it both ways sorry to say.

If he had taken a more measured approach, I’d be waving my “pardon Snowden” flag as well. He didn’t and my concession doesn’t grant Snowden unconditional deference.

And what would that “more measured” approach have looked like in your opinion. And to what end, if you actually agree that if Snowden didn’t do what he did in the way he did it the scope and scale of these programs would have been buried forever, or released in some piecemeal manner likely decades all while the programs were still violating everyone’s privacy (which oddly enough they are still likely doing notwithstanding Mr. Snowden’s disclosures, because none of them have yielded much in the way of significant legal changes to rein in those abuses, in fact quite the opposite Congress has tried to retroactively legalize those practices repeatedly rather than stop them). Are you going to argue that in your role in “oversight” that that the processes available work in a timely manner? I don’t think you can have it both ways, untimely justice is justice denied in most peoples minds, particularly when they are experiencing ongoing violations of their Constitutional rights.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was a direct outcome of the Church Committee as was the creation of oversight committees. The Pike Committee further bolstered oversight abilities. I’m fairly confident in my history here.

Yep and how well did those two pieces of “oversight legislation” function to provide proper oversight of the agencies in question and/or prevent the domestic and global violations of peoples privacy? Bueller, anyone?

Why would you assume this was news to me when I brought it up in the first place and you’re largely repeating what I said? Please save the hysterics.

Which “hysterics” would that be? Using the word “fuck” for emphasis? Sorry I offended your delicate linguistic sensibilities.

And as soon as you find the long-standing and effective examples of “strong independent oversight” when it comes to the CIA and NSA you let me know. And while it’s great to “value” that normative ideal, we’re talking practical reality historically and the here and know.

whistle-blowers shouldn’t be told to just skip inside channels and go straight to the media where they risk exposure to prosecution.

Who is telling them that? Here’s my guess, and particularly when it comes to the “big issues” and lack of transparency across government agencies, you certainly can’t blame the vast majority of people for being suspicious of the effectiveness and cost to them as individuals of attempting internal whistleblower processes free from retaliation and having their lives ruined particularly where the whistleblowers concerns and evidence do in fact strongly suggest if not prove waste, fraud, or illegality by government functionaries.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree about lots of things Nate. Doesn’t mean I find you otherwise unreasonable on other topics.

quote:What happened is ATF officials intimately familiar with the gun-walking blew the whistle – internally, to the IG, and to Congress – which kicked off multiple investigations and the rest is history.”unquote

You don’t know WTF you’re talking about. The internal whistle blower, who was NOT an “official”, contacted a blogger named Mike Vanderbough, who in turn, started writing about it on his site, SipseyStreet Irregulars, which was a “patriot” and gun rights advocate blog he owned while he was alive. He is the one who contacted Congress, and because of his daily expose of what was happening, other journalists became aware of F&F. He even contacted Eric Holder way before Congress subpoenaed him and documented every single happening at DOJ, ATF and FBI. It was also him who broke the story of BorderPatrol agent Terry’s death via one of the FF guns.

Out of curiosity in what “oversight” capacity did you work–attorney or some other role.

Auditor, accounting background and licensed CPA. But not of the usual financial accounting or tax variety but one that focused on programs and compliance. In other words, in tandem with the lawyers who typically oversaw my work at a higher level of the organization. My anecdote was qualified accordingly and was not depicted as the status quo across industry or government.

Again, without knowing what oversight role you filled, and in what context and with what results, I don’t know how to give that argument much weight vs. my experience.

I prefer to keep further detail private.

Moreover, any process that has “flaws” despite you employing it for 10 years, yields what as a function of consistent “justice” and/or “accountability”?

Flaws are inherent in any system or process, and I speak of my entire 10 year experience, during which my organization had to adapt to minimize any flaws.

Have you seen the entire archive? Me either. But so much of what has been disclosed involves hundreds and hundreds of pages of technical information that is absolutely necessary to document the actual mechanism and means by which these programs existed and functioned.

That too is an assumption and one that I’ve seen tossed around here quite a bit. But I’ve read a boatload of these articles and I’d argue that almost all of the substantive points are directly supported by the actual leaked materials. For example, Bart Gellman said that PRISM obtains data from PayPal. I then open up the attached leaked PowerPoint slide referenced in the article and sure enough it says exactly that! Irritatingly, we may never know or it may take Snowden being prosecuted or pardoned for the full details to emerge. I have a very difficult time believing that if the rest of the information was background or technical detail, that it wouldn’t have been published as well. It would only bolster their pieces in ways that PowerPoint slides cannot as effectively do.

But given the scope, scale and reach of what was disclosed, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt that even if he took some material that wasn’t 100% necessary (whether do to time constraints or any other), that so long as it wasn’t publically released by Glenn or other journalism outlets, then it’s a non-issue in my book that he may have take some things that weren’t strictly 100% “necessary” to make his case to the public.

In other words, collateral damage? :)

As a lawyer I’m still more beholden to the concept of “justice” than I am slavish adherence to “process” understanding all the while what function and values that underlay any particular legal process. But if a process is cabined in such a way as to not yield justice, and as a working lawyer I can attest that it often is so cabined without sufficient justification, then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what appropriate balances should be struck as a normative or legal matter.

Just because you operate within a legal framework, doesn’t mean you have to agree with the overarching laws and regulations. Assessing compliance can ultimately lead to changes in said framework. For example, I have a family member that conducts reviews of private prison contracts entered into by State entities. They personally hate the notion of private companies doing such an inherently governmental task, but their mission is not to scrutinize the law but to evaluate compliance with the contract and state/federal rules and regulations. At the federal level, the Department of Justice was receiving so much scrutiny of its use of private prisons that it recently caved and said it would discontinue the Bureau of Prisons’ use of private contractors. This was in part driven by pressure from the media, advocacy groups, and Justice Department oversight.

As for slavish adherence to process, you’re preaching to the choir. We called those folks “checklist auditors.”

In other words, but for Snowden doing what he did we wouldn’t likely know about any of it. Thanks for agreeing to my obvious point. You can’t have it both ways sorry to say.

It isn’t having it both ways. My ideal is that you follow the rules you signed up for unless you can demonstrate they are beyond repair. But like you I’m willing to grant flexibility. If a whistleblower truly believes the system is rigged and wants to go to the media, they have to take even greater care. We’re talking demonstrating that internal efforts were rebuffed, the identification of specific programs and tools believed to be illegal, wasteful or abuse. He didn’t. His bulk-collection of NSA materials would have made Clapper and Co. proud had those contents not been their own property.

Yep and how well did those two pieces of “oversight legislation” function to provide proper oversight of the agencies in question and/or prevent the domestic and global violations of peoples privacy? Bueller, anyone?

Prior to 2009, Snowden had considered leaking government secrets when he was at the CIA, but held off, he later said, not wanting to harm agents in the field, and hoping that Obama would reform the system. His optimism didn’t last long. “[I] watched as Obama advanced the very policies that I thought would be reined in,” he later said. As a result, he added, “I got hardened.” The more Snowden saw of the NSA’s actual business – and, particularly, the more he read “true information,” including a 2009 Inspector General’s report detailing the Bush era’s warrantless-surveillance program – the more he realized that there were actually two governments: the one that was elected, and the other, secret regime, governing in the dark. “If the highest officials in government can break the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, secret powers become tremendously dangerous.”

Fair enough. I think we’ve exhausted our differences on this topic, and not convinced we’re all that far apart in principle, and those differences a probably matters of degree and rhetoric rather than underlying values.

One thing to keep in mind is that part of what motivated Snowden was the result of strong oversight:

The NSA’s internal Inspector General’s report was not a “function of strong oversight”. It was an mechanism employed to bury meaningful oversight. And “internal oversight” that resulted in no meaningful changes to internal policies or external activities.

I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree on what “strong” or “meaningful” oversight might actually look like in effect. For me such oversight has to result in some demonstrable changed or cessation of what should be prohibited activities. And I haven’t seen that in any “meaningful” sense when it comes to the activities of the NSA, CIA or anybody else. And I don’t consider Obama by Executive fiat “stopping torture” as I believe the practices still permitted by the Army Field Manual should also be considered torture.

But I’ve seen zero indication that any oversight or Mr. Snowden’s leaks and their publication have resulted in the cessation of America’s global surveillance activities, and I think that is fundamentally wrong. I have no problem with targeted surveillance of actual suspects of crime or terrorism (acts or planning) so long as there is enough legal and factual basis to obtain a warrant. Short of that blanket surveillance of anyone or the citizens of any nation should be against both domestic and international law. I hope you understand historically why that is an incredibly dangerous power to grant any government notwithstanding the statistically very small likelihood that “terrorism” harms Americans on American soil.

For me such oversight has to result in some demonstrable changed or cessation of what should be prohibited activities. And I haven’t seen that in any “meaningful” sense when it comes to the activities of the NSA, CIA or anybody else. And I don’t consider Obama by Executive fiat “stopping torture” as I believe the practices still permitted by the Army Field Manual should also be considered torture.

The change necessary is often commensurate with the level of public outcry. The NSA may not have suffered the black eye you wanted but they’ve been taken down a peg and that’s not worth glossing over. I think the USA Freedom Act was a good start. NSA defenders like Hayden like to downplay its impact but by eliminating NSA custody of all metadata records and changing the number of “hops” from three to two, it lessened the probability of the government abusing that data because they cannot cast as wide a net and hold onto all the records. Are privacy advocates happy? Of course not, but it’s a step closer to their ideals than they previously had been. So while Snowden’s leaks didn’t unequivocally eliminate the program (which frankly hasn’t proven its benefits outweigh the risks or proven any significant success that couldn’t be achieved elsewhere), it is a gradual improvement. Not every change can be revolutionary.

But I’ve seen zero indication that any oversight or Mr. Snowden’s leaks and their publication have resulted in the cessation of America’s global surveillance activities, and I think that is fundamentally wrong.

I think a lot of the impact of his revelations are not immediately apparent. For example, spying on our allies such as Angela Merkel’s actual phone. On one hand, you could argue that this has been the norm going back to the U.S. spying on the UN in the 1950s. But on the other, does the benefit of spying directly on her outweigh the consequence of being caught.

Short of that blanket surveillance of anyone or the citizens of any nation should be against both domestic and international law. I hope you understand historically why that is an incredibly dangerous power to grant any government notwithstanding the statistically very small likelihood that “terrorism” harms Americans on American soil.

If the United Nations were to pass a resolution on Internet privacy, I’d be all for it! Like anything, it would be tough and have flaws (such as enforcement) but it’s beneficial to everyone. Until that happens (Congress cannot even pass significant cyber-security legislation in its own country), I hope that the USG spend a little less time on the attack and more time defending its citizens’ data.

Fair enough. Good discussion I think. As I said, I think in principle we likely aren’t too far apart.

At this point we probably only disagree on the relative differences in our expectations, normatively, in what could/should be reasonably expected to result from meaningful oversight (assuming one of us could persuade the other it is actually happening or has happened in the past).

Probably not going to get that discussion too much farther down the road given I believe we have fundamental differences about the past and probably somewhat different expectations about what we’d like to see as an end result of oversight (of whatever kind).

Again, appreciate the overall civil quality of the discourse even if it got off to a bit of a rocky start.

“If a whistleblower truly believes the system is rigged and wants to go to the media, they have to take even greater care. We’re talking demonstrating that internal efforts were rebuffed, the identification of specific programs and tools believed to be illegal, wasteful or abuse.”

Look, you guys are arguing way above my pay grade, but that statement really does get to the heart of the matter.

If a whistleblower, working in any capacity within our intelligence, military or foreign affairs bureaucracies goes through internal channels, my impression is that they’re not “rebuffed.” They end up sacrificing their careers, and potentially their freedom, as a result of their attempts.

To argue that this is the preferred method, in order to gradually change oversight laws, strikes me as foolishness. Bureaucracies exist to perpetuate themselves, and so will justify any means necessary to do so, including the cover-up of their own corruption.

I think it was rrheard who pointed out that Pelosi and others “objected” to signs of malfeasance, but that was as far as it went. Clearly, some real pushing of the issues at stake would have endangered their careers if they tried.

Let’s blow away the chaff. Damn the law if it doesn’t lead to justice. I believe it was Thoreau who made that observation in modern times, and I’m with him.

“For example, SSCI spent five years to issue its report on CIA treatment of detainees. That investigation was based on specific allegations of wrongdoing after the CIA’s destruction of tapes in 2005. There was a clear impetus in that case and it still took half a decade!”

Ahh yes, and the allegations of torture and destruction of evidence were borne out after all that investigation; and yet nobody who committed any of these acts of torture or evidence destruction ever went to jail, was ever prosecuted, was ever fired, or was ever disciplined. Oh, but do you know who was prosecuted and served time in prison over all this mess? The whistle-blower on waterboarding. So there Nate, there’s one more example to add to the measly two others given here to support the title’s assertion, but there is a long list of other examples going back 20-30 years. Start with Chuck Spinney. Now, can you please provide some examples demonstrating the opposite, where Congress has aggressively protected CIA and NSA whistle-blowers that went the “proper route,” and aggressively investigated and set about remedying the issues the leakers blew the whistle on? By your assertions and attacks on the premise of this article, I assume the list of examples you will provide must come in volumes.

Furthermore, you didn’t point out that the ThinThread team had the ear of Diane Roark, a staffer on the House Intelligence Committee. She apparently did not play deaf, but helped author the complaint to the Inspector General.

Of course Snowden was justified in going straight to the press. He could not legally contact a congressperson without first notifying the Director of National Intelligence (the perfidious James Clapper) of his intention. Even if Clapper had allowed him to speak to someone like Congressman Wyden (this is a fantasy hypothesis), Wyden already knew pretty well what was happening and had no power to do anything about it. It would have made no difference.
But more important than these considerations: raising it as an internal whistleblower issue would have kept it all secret from the public, when *we have a right to know*. We’re the ones whose privacy has been invaded.
Snowden had no other option, legally or ethically, than to go to the media.
Along with Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden is one of the greatest heroes of the decade, and if I ever meet him, lunch is on me.

What Mr. Eddington points out affirms my view that Edward Snowden’s fear of standing trail on for “treason” might be overblown. Admittedly, I’m speculating on his thoughts AND it is NOT my own neck on the line. But while I conceed that the harm to Snowden from a guilt-verdict (unjustifiable IMHO) is extremely steep, it seems to me that the charges of “treason” is a gross overreach and would be difficult to make stick.

Treason charges, as I understand it (I’m not a lawyer), require “willful” intention to harm, which I would think is questionable proposition, given the facts of the case. On the other hand, a lesser, technical charge, e.g. related to handling classified data, could easily result in prosecution.

Indeed, I’ve been wondering if by claiming charges of “treason”, Obama/Holder/Lynch are NOT actually, secretly throwing Snowden a bone.

Uncle skippy-You are as I was until recently when I pulled my head out of my ass and realized my kin in law enforcement were right, most who work in law enforcement/public service etc do it for selfish reasons. Trust none of them to be on your side. They will use anything and everything for personal gain. Members of the BAR have a fiduciary duty that’s ignored. They swear an oath to the US Constitution to use it as a instrument of destruction. Even those in the system who perform honorably and with respect and integrity will be destroyed if they are perceived as a threat, an obstacle or whatever. Snowden did the right thing. He is the catch of a life time for anyone in our BULLSHIT system. He would never step in a court room. He would be spontaneously labeled a terrorist and put in isolation until he dies with not a peep from anyone what they did because it would all be designated a “National Security Risk.” Snowden is going to have to be pardoned and its going to have to be in a way that explains publicly why his actions were the right thing to do. Then he should be given a cabinet level position in the white house like director of Homeland Security.

An Elder family member was forced out of law enforcement because his ratings, according to an expensive study ordered by his superior the Chief of police, were higher than the Chiefs ratings. Ruined the career of an honest hard working loyal honorable man because he was exactly that.

The reality is the people closest to Snowden will throw him under the bus but like I said, he will never see the light of day if in custody…..

You gave me pause…. since my weakness is to read comments from the top and not the bottom. I’d amend your opening sentence to read: I hope Glenn sees [the link below] and responds in the most civil way, with facts.

Um because he has in the past, and because if you follow the link the piece is two parts factual fabrication (both in its claims about Assanage “rape” charge and Glenn’s nuanced and totally consistent over the years position on “invasion of privacy” vs. “newswothiness” of certain leaks/hacks) and one part straight up character assassination.

I wouldn’t like it if it was done to me, and presumably you wouldn’t like it if it was done to you.

I have no problem with anyone critiquing my arguments or point out any errors in reliance on some “fact”. But to fabricate facts or positions I’ve never taken, or to take statements out of context to then use as a basis to assassinate someone’s character, is something I’m going to respond to–either informally in a blog comments section or with a suit for defamation.

I don’t find it amusing when people slander/libel others.

I generally have a measure of respect for Prof. Loomis’ work, particularly in the context of labor history and labor rights, but something is going on over at LGM that these second rate academics and basically third tier small schools think they can say whatever they want about people like Prof. Robin, Glenn Greenwald, Freddie DeBoer . . . .

But I do agree that by and large they are serious centrist partisan hacks and I’m not surprised their academic careers are where they are.

It really is lame, and an embarrassing reflection on Profs. Lemieux and Loomis, and the regulars that comment there (as I said with a few notable exceptions).

Easy enough to blow up every bit of innuendo, hyperbole, character assassination, poor reasoning, easily disproved factual assertions . . . but maybe its best just to ignore them. Not like their blog seems to exert much influence on anything or anyone. Vanity project for the B or C listers.

Atrios showed up in comments and deftly gave them pause, to which Loomis promptly horked up a plotz. But whatever . . . it’s a relatively free country and they are free to spew forth as they see fit, and we’re all free to rhetorically bash their weaker efforts as we see fit.

This is in part why I think most people are mistaken when they hold up one of my Senators, Sen. Wyden, as some sort of paragon of political virtue. He isn’t.

He has the position and ability to stand on the floor of the Senate and blow the whistle on all of this, and likely be free from prosecution under the Constitution. And even if he was at risk of prosecution, if he was loyal to his oath to the Constitution as a sitting US Senator and the rights of his constituents and fellow citizens, he would/should put his own personal “career” at risk to protect the Constitutional rights of both.

I’ve got some other beefs with him in the “free trade” arena, but Sen. Wyden really isn’t the paragon of political virtue or progressivism that people like to perceive him as in his “oversight” role on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Sen. Wyden isn’t “inept” in his failures. It is his purposeful choice to put his “career” ahead of his Constitutional duty. Well that and possibility of simple political cowardice or lack of moral backbone.

btw I think wyden to be brave. who asks clapper a loaded question on camera?

Wyden brave? Because he asked an opaque loaded question that Clapper lied about in answering and then when it was proved he was lying ended up being consequence free as a result of Wyden and his colleagues doing nothing about that specific violation of law i.e. committing perjury or lying to a Congressional committee while under oath?

I guess we have a different definition of “brave”. I’m an Oregon native who has seen start to finish Sen. Wyden’s career. He is anything but “brave”. I’ve voted for him primarily out of lack of viable liberal/progressive alternatives to his squishy centrist bullshit.

If he was actually “brave” he would have blown the whistle from the floor of the Senate and taken his chances with his protections under the Speech and Debate Clause of the US Constitution. Mike Gravel was “brave”. Sen. Wyden is something else.